We learned yesterday that US Special Forces launched a quick raid into Syria in an attempt to capture ISIS leader Abu Sayyaf and his wife. The raid resulted in over thirty dead ISIS fighters including Abu Sayyaf. His wife, Umm Sayaf, was captured, and a Yazidi woman who had been enslaved by ISIS was freed. There were no Americans killed or wounded. Except for the fact that Sayyaf was killed rather than captured, the raid was perfectly executed.
The American military is a wonderful group. Here we have an example of just how competent they are. Imagine that they sent a force into Syria, achieved complete surprise, mowed down a large group of ISIS fighters who attempted to stop them and killed the man who led all of ISIS oil operations. Since those oil operations are the main way that ISIS funds its activities, this blow is quite significant. Everyone involved in planning and carrying out the raid deserves our congratulations and thanks.
There is, however, a different question that we need to examine. Is the president following the correct strategy when it comes to ISIS?
Let's start by taking president Obama at his word (always a dangerous thing to do.) Obama has told the world that the goal of America is to "degrade and destroy ISIS". Sometimes Obama adds that he wants to destroy ISIS in Iraq, but usually the focus is to destroy ISIS everywhere.
There are at least two strategies that could be employed by American forces to attempt the destruction of ISIS. The first is a strategy of slow escalation. America would ratchet up its involvement in the fight against ISIS only to the point needed to degrade the ISIS forces. As ISIS gains strength, the USA would add activities to the fight, but we would never use our full strength to crush ISIS. This is essentially the same sort of strategy that president Johnson used in Vietnam. Of course, back then, Johnson was trying to keep US involvement at a level that would not draw either the Chinese or the Soviet Union into the fight on the side of the Communist North Vietnamese. The strategy of slowly building up troop levels failed miserably. The North Vietnamese were able to adapt to ever stronger American blows and to inflict substantial casualties on US forces.
The second strategy is to use the full force of the American military to inflict a massive blow on the enemy from which that enemy cannot recover. This was the strategy used in the Gulf War and also in the Iraq War. In each case, the massive blow destroyed the Iraqi army. In the Gulf War, the fighting ended, but in the Iraq War the fighting went on with terror groups and insurgents fight against US forces until they were destroyed by another massive blow in the surge.
Obama seems to have selected the Vietnam model as his strategy for dealing with ISIS. He has used American air power in a lethargic and haphazard manner. A three week air campaign against ISIS using the full force of the US air power would demolish much of the ISIS military. Instead, we see a few bombs dropped each week. Obama introduced US ground forces into Syria with this latest raid on ISIS, but the chance of American troops returning on a regular basis is slim. In Iraq, America forces are also kept from the battle. Obama won't even give arms to those who are actually willing to fight ISIS; our allies, the Kurds, who are the single most pro-American group in Iraq, are left battling against ISIS with only leftover World War II era small arms.
In the last few days, ISIS is again taking control of part of the city of Ramadi. There has been no US response. The Iraqi army is losing ground. The raid that killed Abu Sayyef will not make up for the loss of Ramadi.
There is no doubt that the Pentagon knows full well how to destroy ISIS. The only question is whether or not our president has the will to get that done. As usual, Obama is dithering. He has chosen the strategy of a ditherer. He needs to decide once and for all: will America's mission be to destroy ISIS?
The American military is a wonderful group. Here we have an example of just how competent they are. Imagine that they sent a force into Syria, achieved complete surprise, mowed down a large group of ISIS fighters who attempted to stop them and killed the man who led all of ISIS oil operations. Since those oil operations are the main way that ISIS funds its activities, this blow is quite significant. Everyone involved in planning and carrying out the raid deserves our congratulations and thanks.
There is, however, a different question that we need to examine. Is the president following the correct strategy when it comes to ISIS?
Let's start by taking president Obama at his word (always a dangerous thing to do.) Obama has told the world that the goal of America is to "degrade and destroy ISIS". Sometimes Obama adds that he wants to destroy ISIS in Iraq, but usually the focus is to destroy ISIS everywhere.
There are at least two strategies that could be employed by American forces to attempt the destruction of ISIS. The first is a strategy of slow escalation. America would ratchet up its involvement in the fight against ISIS only to the point needed to degrade the ISIS forces. As ISIS gains strength, the USA would add activities to the fight, but we would never use our full strength to crush ISIS. This is essentially the same sort of strategy that president Johnson used in Vietnam. Of course, back then, Johnson was trying to keep US involvement at a level that would not draw either the Chinese or the Soviet Union into the fight on the side of the Communist North Vietnamese. The strategy of slowly building up troop levels failed miserably. The North Vietnamese were able to adapt to ever stronger American blows and to inflict substantial casualties on US forces.
The second strategy is to use the full force of the American military to inflict a massive blow on the enemy from which that enemy cannot recover. This was the strategy used in the Gulf War and also in the Iraq War. In each case, the massive blow destroyed the Iraqi army. In the Gulf War, the fighting ended, but in the Iraq War the fighting went on with terror groups and insurgents fight against US forces until they were destroyed by another massive blow in the surge.
Obama seems to have selected the Vietnam model as his strategy for dealing with ISIS. He has used American air power in a lethargic and haphazard manner. A three week air campaign against ISIS using the full force of the US air power would demolish much of the ISIS military. Instead, we see a few bombs dropped each week. Obama introduced US ground forces into Syria with this latest raid on ISIS, but the chance of American troops returning on a regular basis is slim. In Iraq, America forces are also kept from the battle. Obama won't even give arms to those who are actually willing to fight ISIS; our allies, the Kurds, who are the single most pro-American group in Iraq, are left battling against ISIS with only leftover World War II era small arms.
In the last few days, ISIS is again taking control of part of the city of Ramadi. There has been no US response. The Iraqi army is losing ground. The raid that killed Abu Sayyef will not make up for the loss of Ramadi.
There is no doubt that the Pentagon knows full well how to destroy ISIS. The only question is whether or not our president has the will to get that done. As usual, Obama is dithering. He has chosen the strategy of a ditherer. He needs to decide once and for all: will America's mission be to destroy ISIS?
No comments:
Post a Comment